Assessing the Economic Impact of Irrigation Modernization Projects: A Case Study from Türkiye
Abstract
1. Introduction
- Is the modernization of a large-scale, traditional irrigation scheme economically viable at the project level?
- What is the potential aggregate impact on national agricultural income if modernization were implemented across all eligible systems in Türkiye?
- To conduct a comprehensive project-level cost–benefit analysis of fully modernizing a large-scale traditional open-channel irrigation system;
- To quantify the economic value of water savings in terms of additional irrigable area and restored non-operational land;
- To estimate the potential national-level economic impact of irrigation modernization in Türkiye using a consistent accounting framework based on national statistics.
2. Literature Review
2.1. The Imperative for Modernization: From Global Scarcity to National Strategy
2.2. Methodological Foundations for Economic Evaluation
2.3. Identifying the Research Gap in the Turkish Context
3. Methodology
3.1. The Concept and Calculation of Irrigation Efficiency
3.2. Case Study: The Ivriz Irrigation Modernization Project
- Scenario 1 (60% Overall Efficiency): A conservative scenario in which farmers continue to use traditional surface irrigation (ea = 60%).
- Scenario 2 (75% Overall Efficiency): A moderate scenario reflecting a widespread transition to sprinkler irrigation (ea = 75%).
- Scenario 3 (90% Overall Efficiency): An optimistic scenario assuming a complete shift toward high-efficiency drip irrigation (ea = 90%).
3.3. National-Level Impact Assessment Model
3.3.1. Post-Modernization Irrigation Efficiency Calculation
- Baseline Scenario (Current On-Farm Practices)
- Optimistic Scenario (Shift to Efficient Practices)
3.3.2. Calculation of Post-Modernization Water Diversion
3.3.3. Estimation of Water Savings
3.3.4. Additional Irrigable Area Calculation
3.3.5. Economic Valuation of Additional Irrigable Area
4. Results
4.1. Economic Profitability of the Ivriz Project
4.2. Estimated National Economic Impact
5. Discussion and Conclusions
5.1. Interpretation of Results and Policy Implications
5.2. Policy Recommendations
5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| Areaadd,base | Additional irrigable area under the baseline scenario |
| Areaadd,modern | Additional irrigable area under the post-modernization (project-level) scenario |
| Areaadd,opt | Additional irrigable area under the optimistic scenario |
| BCR | Benefit–Cost Ratio |
| CBA | Cost–Benefit Analysis |
| CWR | Crop Water Requirement |
| DSİ | State Hydraulic Works of Türkiye |
| e | Overall irrigation efficiency |
| ea | Field application efficiency |
| ebase,avg | Average overall irrigation efficiency under the baseline scenario |
| ec | Conveyance efficiency |
| eopt,avg | Average overall irrigation efficiency under the optimistic scenario |
| FAO | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations |
| IRR | Internal Rate of Return |
| NPV | Net Present Value |
| Papp,j | National proportion of on-farm irrigation method |
| Vd | Volume of water diverted from the source |
| Vdcurrent | Current volume of water diverted from the source |
| Vdmodern | Post-modernization volume of water diverted from the source |
| Vdopt | Post-modernization volume of water diverted under the optimistic scenario |
| WS | Water savings |
| WSbase | Water savings under the baseline scenario |
| WSopt | Water savings under the optimistic scenario |
| WUAs | Water User Associations |
References
- United Nations. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2023: Partnerships and Cooperation for Water; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Çakmak, B.; Avcı, S. Assessment of agricultural water consumption in İzmir Province. Turk. J. Agric.-Food Sci. Technol. 2025, 13, 1278–1284. [Google Scholar]
- DSİ. 2024 Evaluation Report of İrrigation Schemes Operated and Transferred by DSİ; Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Operation and Maintenance: Ankara, Türkiye, 2025.
- Özkan, B.; Güleryüz, H. A comparison of the effects of drip and furrow irrigation methods on the yield and quality of cotton. J. Field Crops Cent. Res. Inst. 1995, 4, 17–20. [Google Scholar]
- Hanjra, M.A.; Qureshi, M.E. Global water crisis and future food security in an era of climate change. Food Policy 2010, 35, 365–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Misra, A.K. Climate change and challenges of water and food security. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2014, 3, 153–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheeseman, J. Food security in the face of salinity, drought, climate change, and population growth. In Halophytes for Food Security in Dry Lands; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016; pp. 111–123. [Google Scholar]
- Dinar, A.; Tieu, A.; Huynh, H. Water scarcity impacts on global food production. Glob. Food Secur. 2019, 23, 212–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, M.H. Water conveyance loss and designing conveyance system. In Practices of İrrigation & On-Farm Water Management; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; Volume 2, pp. 1–34. [Google Scholar]
- Rijo, M.; Pereira, L.S. Measuring conveyance efficiencies to improve irrigation water management. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 1987, 1, 267–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Bekchanov, M. Conveyance efficiency and irrigation water productivity under varying water supply conditions in arid lowlands of Central Asia. Agric. Water Manag. 2024, 293, 108697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berbel, J.; Gómez-Limón, J.A. The impact of water-pricing policy in Spain: An analysis of three irrigated areas. Agric. Water Manag. 2000, 43, 219–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berbel, J.; Expósito, A.; Gutiérrez-Martín, C.; Mateos, L. Effects of the irrigation modernization in Spain 2002–2015. Water Resour. Manag. 2019, 33, 1835–1849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gittinger, J.P. Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects, 2nd ed.; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Adusumilli, N.; Davis, S.; Fromme, D. Economic evaluation of using surge valves in furrow irrigation of row crops in Louisiana: A net present value approach. Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 174, 61–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elyamany, A.H.; El-Nashar, W.Y. Estimating life cycle cost of improved field irrigation canal. Water Resour. Manag. 2016, 30, 99–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pani, I.; Putranto, D.D.A.; Wardhani, P.K. Net present value (NPV) of the rehabilitated irrigation channels to increase agricultural production. Int. J. Adv. Technol. Eng. Explor. 2021, 8, 576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ağızan, S.; Bayramoğlu, Z. Comparative investment analysis of agricultural irrigation systems. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Derg. 2021, 18, 222–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorain, S.; Singh, D.R.; Kumar, P.; Venkatesh, P.; Jha, G.K. Social costs and benefits analysis of drip irrigation system in Northern Maharashtra. Econ. Aff. 2018, 63, 1061–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romero, P.; García, J.; Botía, P. Cost–benefit analysis of a regulated deficit-irrigated almond orchard under subsurface drip irrigation conditions in Southeastern Spain. Irrig. Sci. 2006, 24, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- You, L.; Xie, H.; Wood-Sichra, U.; Guo, Z.; Wang, L. Irrigation potential and investment return in Kenya. Food Policy 2014, 47, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hogg, H.C.; Vieth, G.R. Method for evaluating irrigation projects. J. Irrig. Drain. Div. 1977, 103, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thrikawala, S.; Batzlen, C.; Korale-Gedara, P. Cost–Benefit Analysis of irrigation projects. In Agricultural Policy Analysis: Concepts and Tools for Emerging Economies; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 295–330. [Google Scholar]
- Keskin, M.; Demir, Y. Sulama projelerinin ekonomik analizinde kullanılan sosyal iskonto oranının belirlenmesi üzerine bir araştırma. Ziraat Fakültesi Derg. 2018, 23, 759–766. [Google Scholar]
- Yazar, A. Participatory irrigation management (PIM) in Turkey: A case study in the Lower Seyhan irrigation project. In Water Valuation and Cost Recovery Mechanisms in the Developing Countries of the Mediterranean Region; Hamdy, A., Lacirignola, C., Lamaddalena, N., Eds.; CIHEAM: Paris, France, 2002; pp. 191–210. [Google Scholar]
- Cakmak, B.; Kibaroglu, A.; Kendirli, B.; Gokalp, Z. Assessment of the irrigation performance of transferred schemes in Turkey: A case study analysis. Irrig. Drain. 2010, 59, 138–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koç, C. Sustainability of irrigation schemes transferred in Turkey. Irrig. Drain. 2018, 67, 242–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cakmak, B.; Beyribey, M.; Yildirim, Y.E.; Kodal, S. Benchmarking performance of irrigation schemes: A case study from Turkey. Irrig. Drain. 2004, 53, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaltu, S.; Güneş, E. Mısırda (Zea mays L.) farklı sulama sistemlerinin verim ve gelir üzerine etkisi. Tarım Bilim. Araştırma Derg. 2010, 2, 27–31. [Google Scholar]
- Atabey, B.; Erdem, T. Trakya Bölgesi koşullarında damla sulama uygulamalarının ekonomik açıdan değerlendirilmesi. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Derg. 2016, 13, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Soydam, A.; Çakmak, B. Toplu basınçlı sulama sistemlerinin ekonomik yönden karşılaştırılması; Yaylak Projesi 1400 nolu yedeği örneği. J. Agric. Sci. 2006, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. Irrigation Water Management: Irrigation Scheduling. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available online: https://www.fao.org/4/T7202E/t7202e08.htm (accessed on 1 January 2026).
- State Hydraulic Works of Türkiye (DSİ). Planlı su dağıtım rehberi [Guideline for Planned Water Distribution]; State Hydraulic Works of Türkiye (DSİ): Ankara, Türkiye, 2015.
- State Hydraulic Works of Türkiye (DSİ). Sulama ile sağlanan ortalama verim ve üretim değeri artışları, 2013–2024 [Average Yield and Production Value Increases Achieved Through Irrigation]. 2024. Available online: https://www.dsi.gov.tr/Sayfa/Detay/2186 (accessed on 1 January 2026).

| Crop Category | Cultivation Share (%) | Income Increase per Decare (TL) |
|---|---|---|
| Cotton | 13 | 7241.3 |
| Corn | 23 | 5568.8 |
| Sugar Beet | 5 | 6299.8 |
| Forage Crops | 6 | 6206.1 |
| Cereals | 15 | 3232.9 |
| Fruits & Vegetables | 17 | 18,732.0 |
| Others | 21 | 7879.0 |
| Category | Indicator | Scenario 1 (60% Eff.) | Scenario 2 (75% Eff.) | Scenario 3 (90% Eff.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical Projections | Post-Modernization Water Diversion (m3/ha) | 7323 | 5859 | 4882 |
| Water Savings (m3/ha) | 253 | 1717 | 2694 | |
| Additional Irrigable Area (ha) | 3734 | 12,398 | 21,062 | |
| Monetary Projections | Total Annual Benefit (USD) | 5,343,073 | 17,741,186 | 30,139,300 |
| Economic Viability Metrics | Net Present Value (NPV) (USD) | −100,903,903 | 76,438,656 | 253,781,215 |
| Benefit–Cost Ratio (BCR) | 0.43 | 1.43 | 2.43 | |
| Internal Rate of Return (IRR) (%) | 1 | 7 | 12 |
| Indicator | Unit | Baseline Scenario | Optimistic Scenario |
|---|---|---|---|
| Post-Modernization Efficiency (e) | % | 69.86 | 82.5 |
| Water Use per Hectare (WU) | m3/ha | 6946 | 5881 |
| Water Savings per Hectare (WS) | m3/ha | 2513 | 3577 |
| Additional Irrigable Area per Hectare | ha | 0.36 | 0.61 |
| Total Additional Irrigable Area | ha | 1,772,952 | 2,980,875 |
| Estimated Income Increase | billion TL/year | 146 | 245.4 |
| Estimated Income Increase | billion USD/year | 3.47 | 5.84 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Dedemen, G.; Kocak, S. Assessing the Economic Impact of Irrigation Modernization Projects: A Case Study from Türkiye. Water 2026, 18, 497. https://doi.org/10.3390/w18040497
Dedemen G, Kocak S. Assessing the Economic Impact of Irrigation Modernization Projects: A Case Study from Türkiye. Water. 2026; 18(4):497. https://doi.org/10.3390/w18040497
Chicago/Turabian StyleDedemen, Gokmen, and Salih Kocak. 2026. "Assessing the Economic Impact of Irrigation Modernization Projects: A Case Study from Türkiye" Water 18, no. 4: 497. https://doi.org/10.3390/w18040497
APA StyleDedemen, G., & Kocak, S. (2026). Assessing the Economic Impact of Irrigation Modernization Projects: A Case Study from Türkiye. Water, 18(4), 497. https://doi.org/10.3390/w18040497

